User talk:Timtrent

Messages for Fiddle Faddle and for Timtrent should be left here. This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate account. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

It is 7:31 AM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

Draft:Multistable auditory perception

Hello Timtrent! I'm a bit confused as to why my article is getting denied submission; I realized that one of the sources was original research not published in a peer reviewed journal, so I removed all references to that resource. I'm unsure why the page is still being denied submission, do you think you can help me shine a light on the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqiu (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Heqiu: I hoped I had given you a detailed answer at the draft. Please will you help me by refining your question? Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi Tim, I really appreciate the speedy responses. The notice said weeks and you got to it in a matter of hours. That said, the question I have is, now that I've deleted all sources that aren't peer reviewed journals, is the only remaining problem that I need to prove that it is notable by including more references? 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Heqiu: What you need to do is somehow to show that it is notable, and the academic papers may do that. I tend to think they do not, as you can see. Are these sources peer reviewed? Can you demonstrate that? If so you are home free. Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ThreadSafe

Hi Timtrent,

I was very disappointed that Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ThreadSafe wasn't approved, particularly after waiting for 6 weeks. At least two of your three specific complaints are incorrect, see below. And I think the editorial standards you are applying for notability would have rejected at least 4-5 of the 13 Wikipedia articles on similar tools listed in List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis#Java - for instance AgileJ StructureViews has no references at all and the only references in Squale are about the project's funding.

Looking at the specific references you have flagged (numbering as in Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ThreadSafe):

• [3]: "ca;t see Threadsafe in this reference". It talks about "Contemplate's technology": this refers to ThreadSafe, which didn't have a name at that point.
• [4]: "does not mention Threadsafe". Not true - you need to go to pages 2 and 3 of the article to see it. The first page, and indeed the whole article, is about precisely the point that the reference is attached to.
• [5]: "flagged as requiring some form of subscription". No, they just want your email address so they can put you on their mailing list. There is a copy here if you would like to check what it contains. It also supports most of the earlier points in the article.

You don't say anything about [2], which is very detailed and supports each of the statements it is attached to. The author is one of the developers of ThreadSafe but InfoQ's editorial process screens out unsubstantiated material. In this case the bulk of the article is specific downloadable versions of open source codebases which can be checked with ThreadSafe under a free trial to obtain the results indicated. The editor who accepted the article did try ThreadSafe before accepting it.

You don't say anything about [1], which is independent but less detailed; again it supports each of the statements it is attached to.

I wonder what to do now? Maybe my points above are enough that you will reconsider? I could add two references, if that would help:

• : I didn't include it because it is subsumed by [2] and is older, but it is independent (in fact, written by the editor who accepted 2 for InfoQ).
• : this is an independent blog post, which I didn't include because it's lightweight compared with the other references.

Thanks in advance for your input! I hope you will understand my frustration.

Best regards, Don (Dsannella (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

@Dsannella: Thank you for coming here. I'm sorry you had to wait six weeks. We are all people like you, volunteers. It will never work at the speed people wish for. I specialise in reviewing the oldest submissions, and I will give you a written guarantee that I do not always get it right. You are more than welcome to ask for other eyes on my review. I don;t have the time at present to look in any further detail because I am off to work. I felt that you deserved to know that I will look again, but not until the sun has set and risen again

One point before I go; other articles succeed or fail on their individual merits. It may seem weird, but it is the way of Wikipedia. Each article is as vulnerable as any other to being nominated for deletion, and at ay stage in its life here. If those articles fall below the standard required, any editor may nominate them for deletion. What I want to prevent with yours is a fast nomination for deletion the moment it lands in article space. Articles with a track record of being deleted are often deleted summarily whenever they are spotted.

I will look tomorrow. If the references you have proposed pass the WP:RS test (I have not looked, I felt an answer was more important than a detailed answer today) please add them Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for your very quick and helpful response, and for your willingness to have another look so quickly! WOW! Wikipedia is a great resource that I use every day and I very well understand that maintaining quality requires a lot of hard work from dedicated volunteers like you. What I said about the speed wasn't meant as a complaint, but I can see that it came out that way, sorry!

I've added the two references I mentioned. I think they improve notability because they are definitely independent. The second one is a blog. The WP:RS guidelines say that "personal and group blogs" are unacceptable. This is a company blog - don't know if that counts or not - and the article is an independent review by a user of ThreadSafe.

The article is now a little cluttered with multiple references for most statements but I don't see what else I can do if the previous references were insufficient. I can of course remove some if necessary and would be grateful for your guidance. I would be reluctant to remove the Atkey paper because, although the author is one of the developers of ThreadSafe, it provides the most useful and detailed information.

I have also clarified that the GrammaTech article requires registration (not subscription).

I haven't removed your annotations on the three references that I refer to above (note that the numbering of references in the article is now different: 1,2,3,4,5 before -> 2,3,4,5,7 now, not to be confused with 1,2 below which are now 1,6 there).

Thanks again! Dsannella (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dsannella: I will look now at each reference individually here:

1. http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/08/ThreadSafe-Public-Release I am not competent to judge whether InfoQ is WP:RS or not. There is, however, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can ask about it. It has a borderline look and feel, but that means nothing. After you have received a reply I'd love to know the answer. That way I can gain new knowledge, and we both win.
2. http://www.devx.com/Java/contemplate-delivers-threadsafe-java-concurrency-static-analysis-tool.html I have the same answer as for number 1. There is a problem, though, because that article identifies you as the CEO, and that means that we have to note that you are conflicted in writing this article. WP:COI is important to us, as I am sure you know. That does not make it impossible to write a neutral article, but it makes it darned hard. WP:AFC minimises COI, however, because of the rather tough review process through pedantic people like me.
3. http://www.infoq.com/articles/Java-Concurrency-Static-Analysis-with-ThreadSafe has precisely the same issues as number 1. It is a review, which is what we want and need, not a notice of release, so it is the best reference so far. If InfoQ makes the grade, this is a great reference. If not, not. We depend upon InfoQ
4. http://web.archive.org/web/20131014022454/http://www.cfo-insight.com/risk-management-it/it/software-errors-new-technology-briefing-for-cfos/ This most definitely is RS. I see, now, that Contemplate is mentioned in it, but Threadsafe seems not to be. We need the subject of the article to be handled in the reference. While I know you can argue that Threadsafe is a product from Contemplate, the average casual reader does not know that so easily. So something has to happen to make the connection. Folk like me, we're picky about references, and this is one of those picky times
5. http://www.cio.com/article/749493/Why_Software_Testing_Can_t_Save_You_From_IT_Disasters It took me a while to find it. And it is, of course, there. And the source is reliable. I suggest you change the reference to be http://www.cio.com/article/749493/Why_Software_Testing_Can_t_Save_You_From_IT_Disasters?page=2&taxonomyId=3039
6. http://blog.novatec-gmbh.de/threadsafe-fast-way-discover-concurrency-problems/ is indeed a blog. What we need to do is to confirm whetehr the organisation and its blog can be classified as RS. The author, appears to be like me, a decent bloke but non notable himself. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivansenic That is not an obstacle, but he is an employee of the orgamnisation. Before we even look at the organsiation we presume that his opinion is his employer's. He does not have the illusory independence of a journalist, for example. TReading http://blog.novatec-gmbh.de/about/ shows us that Novatec has a purpose that is not simply the provision of information. They sell their expertise. They are thus not RS, certainly in this field. Gartner they are not (though I have strong doubts about that organisation as RS at tomes, too)
7. http://grammatech.com/whitepapers/conquering-complex-java-concurrency-bugs-with-codesonar Subscribing to a newsletter (etc) really is payment. My working life was on permission based marketing, and I have some expertise in the value of data. Giving my data in order to receive a white paper is payment. So I must refer to the version (and you should reference) the version that is free to access. I see it as a white paper about Threadsafe. Good. http://grammatech.com/about tells me about Grammatech. I am sure you will see that I have the same concerns, well similar concerns, to those I have about number 6

None of this is insoluble. If you look at {{Cite web}} and its sister templates you will see that there are parameters you have not used. Some of the issues may be solved by used of quoted snippets and the quote= parameter. I commend further study of the parameters.

So, what would I do were I the author?

Drop like a hot brick any references that are not WP:RS. Same with any that do not mention the product, though a route is to link product to corporation and make that reference refer to the linkage. The problem there is that it is word gymnastics to do so with that reference. Read User:Timtrent/A good article and the places it links to. Loads of reading, but time is what we all have. Yes, you are keen to promote this article to main namespace, but, of course, you realise that this is Wikipedia and is not a promotional tool for Threadsafe. We report notable things, we do not promote them to become notable.

Even though the review process can take a rather long time, as shown by the huge number of submission in Category:AfC submissions by age/Very old, a category refilled overnight every day, and the category in which I 'work', resubmit when you are ready and forget about it until reviewed again. Edit even after resubmission.

You can see why I had no time yesterday! I hope you find this of some use, and at least an explanation of my thinking. Remember, I am not necessarily correct. I am just a couple of pages further on in the manual than you are, after all. Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks again for the very detailed and helpful comments! I'll do what you say. I have already asked about InfoQ and DevX in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and will let you know here when it seems that there is a conclusion.

Can I just respond to a couple of things above? I understand that you're short of time.

• Re COI and Wikipedia not being a promotional tool: I understand and for that reason I have been extremely careful with my wording, with most of this article being near-quotes from the sources. (I was explicit about the degree of my COI when I first submitted the article but I don't see anymore where that is recorded.)

• Re lack of explicit mention of ThreadSafe in [4]: It's in the title of the broken image at the top but nowhere else - unfortunately the publication has ceased publication so this is an archive copy without images, and I think the image included this as a caption. The only way I can establish that ThreadSafe is Contemplate's only product is by pointing to http://www.contemplateltd.com but surely that is verboten. I could add an explanation as a tag on the reference, using {{Cite web}} parameters - is that what you're suggesting?

• Re GrammaTech whitepaper: I take your point but the statement in question is a factual one about something that they sell ("ThreadSafe is available as a fully-integrated plug-in to GrammaTech's CodeSonar suite of program analysis tools"), not a matter of opinion. (I copied the heading and style from another Wikipedia article about a similar tool.) For COI reasons I didn't use it as support for the earlier statements in the article although all of that and more is there too. And I don't see anything in the WP:RS guidelines which forbids references to subscription-only material, in fact the encouragement to refer to scholarly journals etc. suggests the opposite. I can't publish the link I gave in the article (and will remove it now from the web) because I don't own the copyright.

• Re use of quoted snippets etc. using {{Cite web}} parameters: I can do it but I have never seen that on Wikipedia - well, maybe in articles about controversial issues in politics but not in technical articles like this one. I can see that an editor might want to see the justification but don't you think that actual readers would regard it as annoying clutter? Or would these details be edited out at the point of publication?

Dsannella (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dsannella: All understood. I view the article as written neutrally. COI needs to be logged "because it does" if you follow me. The WP:AFC process pretty much handles trade puffery, as I'm sure you know. We force folk to rip any that might have been present out . Look at Epsom College for deployment of the quote parameter. References to subscription only material are fine, but we flag them. References are references are references, if you follow me, but we like to ensure that folk to not trip over without being forewarned. It is acceptable to use a primary source where no RS exists, but we use them sparingly (the key point). It is worth noting on the talk page that one has done this in the hope of transparency. Some folk refuse to understand and stuff 'their articles' with link after link to their own 'stuff' (repetition intended).

Always remember that I am one opinion only. I have been wrong in the past and the present. I will be wrong in the future. Use me as guide. This is why I do my best never to review an article twice. Articles, unless they are immediately acceptable, need more than one set of eyes. I'm sure I've missed a question, somewhere, for which my apologies. Fiddle Faddle 13:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I've done everything you suggested - I think - and resubmitted the article. Still waiting for somebody to respond to my questions about InfoQ and DevX in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You say that you try not to review an article twice, but since you've already put quite a lot of work into this one and been so helpful in listing what I need to do, and since this article has already been scrutinised by three sets of eyes, perhaps you'd like to make an exception in this case. Maybe even before it reaches Category:AfC submissions by age/Very old? Dsannella (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dsannella: I'm tempted, but I will pass on the opportunity. We have a backlog clearance drive lasting for the whole of June, and I am certain that the article will be handled very soon. It really is important to have further eyes. I predict the article will be live before the end of June. Fiddle Faddle 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dsannella: Congratulations. I knew it would be accepted soon. Hard work, but worthwhile. It is no mean feat to get an article accepted when one is the principal. It takes a lot of head scratching to do it. Please do not stop with Threadsafe. Writing articles on Wikipedia is a hugely valuable skill for one's real world efforts, too. Being able to write neutrally also enhances one's ability to write marketing copy. Yes, a paradox, but true. I started in IT sales & marketing in 1979 and it finally spat me out around 2009. I can still write bullshit and hype with the best of them! Fiddle Faddle 00:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks again for your help! I was waiting to hear about InfoQ and DevX in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before coming back, but there have been no responses. I guess the other editor decided that the references were strong enough to accept the article. I'm much more used to writing dry academic prose than marketing material, so neutral isn't so hard for me. I have made minor anonymous contributions to Wikipedia articles in the past but this has been a different experience. I'll try to do more when I have some time. Dsannella (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused

Timtrent, I'm confused. Why aren't articles by reporters for independent news organizations like Fortune, AdAge, etc., not considered reliable sources? I would appreciate it if you would look at all of my sources. The vast majority of the sources are independent news or independent organizations who have researched, interviewed, and vetted Ms. Styring.

Also, there are many articles on Wikipedia about individuals who are relevant leaders in their respective fields with very similar sources (articles about them, interviews with them, bios from speaking engagements or board appointments, etc.). Here are a couple examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Luck and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Reid_(market_research)

I would appreciate it if you could explain to me the difference between my references about Kelley and these.

Thanks. SES6714 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@SES6714: It is helpful to link to the article you are discussing. I had to work out what you were wanting to discuss.

We are not reviewing Kristin Luck, nor Angus Reid. We are reviewing Draft:Kelley Styring. WIkipedia does not use any article as a precedent for any other article. That may seem unreasonable until you understand that using articles as precedents produces a lowest common denominator Wikipedia. I can check those articles, yes. And, if they have the same referencing I will flag their references for attention

The article, as I said in my review, in the sample of references that I checked, is, with precision, exactly as I saw it. The italicised definition of what a reference is, that is what you need to attend to.

Anything Styring says in person, including an interview is not independent of her. She has said it. Anything that is a regurgitated press release or PR piece is not independent of her. Anything that is not in a WP:RS is inadmissible. And 100% of the sample I checked fell into one or more of those categories. Any fact you assert in the article must be backed by a reference that is an appropriate, admissible reference, or the fact must be removed.

The issue is that we are trying to build lasting quality. That is hard work. Finding good references is hard work. WP:AFC has the intention of seeking to ensure that an article is not vulnerable to deletion upon arrival as an article. Being asked for better references is far better than trying to defend in a deletion discussion. Being deleted hurts. Fiddle Faddle 07:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference checks for Aleya SenSharma

Hi Timtrent, I would like to thank you for getting to my notice about the reference articles. I have a few questions 1. You have mentioned 'I have sampled the references, not checked them all. 100% of my sample does not mention Aleya SenSharma.' I would like to inform you that I am married and my name before marriage was Aleya Sen and post marriage I am known as Aleya SenSharma. I have not mentioned about my spouse on the information table on wikipedia. If my name is an issue for the reference check, I would request you to reconsider as not all websites (references) will have my post marriage name. Also, if the name is not the issue and there is something else you in the references you would like to highlight, please let me know the references you did not find appropriate.

2. You have mentioned that I cannot write about myself. Do I need to request the page to be written under ' Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession ' OR some other area, please let me know. I trust you would help.

3. There is a 'Resubmit' tab on my page. Am I allowed to Resubmit the page after you have informed me of the references? or Do I follow point no. 2 Aleya sensharma (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Aleya sensharma: The answer is that you will probably not enjoy submitting an autobiography for he simple reason that it will be edited to hell and back by every other editor who chooses, and you will discover that thing sin your life that you are not so happy about will appear in the public domain, even briefly, even if they are not referenced in WP:RS. You may also discover that you do not merit a Wikipedia article. So the route forward is up to you. We discourage it, but do not prohibit it. IT is almost never a positive experience for the author. You will also find it very difficult to wriote neutrally about yourself.

With regard to your name pre-marriage, if that is the name in references then you need to note in the articke, if yoiu have not, that you went by Sen and now SenSharma.

If you feel the article should be resubmitted, please do resubmit it, but think carefully before you do so about the positive and negative effects this experience will have for you. Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Article to Wiki

Hello, I have decided not to contribute an article to Wikipedia. Since there is such a hatred of the feminine in the world it is too easy for mischief makers to vandalize the site by isolating terms connected to others that cannot be connected on Wiki due to length of article. And then I would not be able to correct it - COI Second, sites on Wiki have to be written by 'second' parties who have not put in 20 - 30 years examining and analyzing 10,000 names embedding male bias and have little knowledge of how the sum of names work to make the message of male superiority in divide to conquer ideology by which the whole species was damaged. Everyone is harmed in the language we use today.

I worked from January to May on this article. I got criticisms of COI, too essay-ish, slotted as "feminist", and assumed I was not a specialist in this specific area of language. I will prepare this work for a blog to put online. Blogs are as easily 'googled' as Wiki articles.

My work is not feminist. Feminism is a euphemistic put-down. In its final conclusions my whole work is in defense of reason, facts and truths needed to develop rational and moral society.LouiseGouefficLouise Goueffic (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Louise Goueffic: That seems paranoid, ands also somewhat arrogant. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that has consensus based rules. Before trying to contribute an article here it seems sensible to have learned the rules. You did not and now you cry "Foul!l" when you drive a coach and horses through them. Still, you do seem to be the only one marching in step over this. Wikipedia is not academe, and you do not get to publish your work here. If it ever achieves notability then Wikipedia will report it. if not, then not. Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Article with inline URLS"

Hi, Thanks for reviewing my article. In order not to make any new mistakes regarding linking, would you give me an example of what an inline URL looks like, as opposed to Wikilinks, external links and external references? Best regards Bramblebough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblebough (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timtrent, Thanks for revising my article. I think I now understand the problem of inline URL linking. The problem is that I tried to link to pages that are in Portuguese Wikipedia. I read the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Interlanguage_links and tried to link correctly but the links don't seem to weork correctly. Best regards

Bramblebough 18:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Bramblebough

Bramblebough 18:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblebough (talk • contribs)

@Bramblebough: Certainly. Wikipedia is an inline URL talk is a Wikilink. Linking between Wikipedias is posisble. Try placing {{Helpme}} on your own talk page and ask the question. Someone will drop by and help you remarkably soon. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/user:GreenLips/Sandbox

Timtrent. Thanks for reviewing. Are you telling me the sub jest "Bill Haney" is not worthy of appearing in Wiki? I some how doubt that was your intent considering all the news articles written about him and his publishing history. But, if that's the case please be clear and I won't waste my time or your any further. I had been getting reviews that had encouraged me NOT to give up because Bill Haney seemed notable. Please explain. Thank you. GreenLips (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Greenlips: Your sandbox contained something that was NOT Bill Haney. It was some sort of message to no-one in particular. I've shown you where the article is on your own talk page. PLease just get on with editing and submitting that! I was actually helping you by removing the clutter and showing you were the article is! Fiddle Faddle 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews

Hi, Fiddle Faddle! After talking with you, and folks on Teahouse and live help, I have been diligently reworking Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate your taking a look to see if your objections have been cleared up. I really want to have it ship-shape when a reviewer next decides its acceptability. Thanks and regards, Oldbeeg (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess it was ship-shape. Thank you! Oldbeeg (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Dayton Superior

Hello, you recently rejected my article. I would like clarification on why you rejected it. You said there were too many references from the organization itself. However what was being cited (the notable projects) is simply listing projects the company has been a part of. There should be nothing wrong with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytonsuperior (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Daytonsuperior: If they are notable then they will be covered in places that are not the company's own material. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. No such coverage means they are not notable. Fiddle Faddle 06:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Reference checks for Aleya SenSharma

Dear Timtrent, A few of my references (links) show Aleya Sen and few display my name as Aleya SenSharma. You have advised - 'With regard to your name pre-marriage, if that is the name in references then you need to note in the article, if you have not, that you went by Sen and now SenSharma'.

I would NOT like to have a mention of my marriage in my article, but still be called by my post marriage name 'Aleya SenSharma'. I hope you understand. Is there an alternative for using my post marriage name on my article and the references provided without mentioning about my marriage? so that the resources are not termed as unreliable.

Also, if I request my article to be created under 'Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography' how long (approx days) does it take for the article to be created?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleya sensharma (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Aleya sensharma: There will be a problem. If the article is accepted, or if any other article is created about you, your marriage will be mentioned, by someone, and will be cited in a reliable source. I hope you realise that you will never have any control over this because you can not own the article. What you need to do now is to think hard about this article and what will happen in the future.

That problem will exist if you request creation. And a request can be immediate or take for ever. I fear it depends on the whim of thise doing the work.

Wikipedia is a very awkward place to work. As soon as we save the work it becomes public property. I'm sorry this is the answer you do not wish to hear, but I want you to know and understand how WIkipedia works. Fiddle Faddle 14:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirect for Sam Cabot, plus some leftovers

Hi, Timtrent. I would like to discuss a problem with the Sam Cabot redirect. There are two writers who make up Cabot, and the redirect does not reference S. J. Rozan. I posted about my wanting to link two bios to a pen name in the Teahouse earlier, before I saw this redirect. Can two names be on a redirect (which I doubt)? Would a simple page titled Sam Cabot with wikilinks to Dews and Rozan work better? Is there another solution?

In the Dews edit text, there is still a lot of leftover submission text at the bottom, along with a second persondata box and the start of a second set of categories. Can I delete all that to further clean it up? And one final question. I have had more paragraphs and you close them to two. I don't want us in an edit war on paragraph size. Can we discuss? I don't care for the longer paragraphs as I think it makes them more daunting to read through. But the more practical reason for smaller paragraphs for me is that it makes it easier to find the place to make an edit. With all the citations intermixed with the text, having more 'beginnings' gives more reference points at which to start looking. Thanks and regards, Oldbeeg (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Oldbeeg: My fault :) deal with the redirect in any way you see fit, and feel free to tidy anything that needs tidying. Don't forget to stand back and enjoy it when other editors take over the article. Be Father not Mother. Fiddle Faddle 14:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent, after the 'clean-up', I hope to ignore it for a month or so. I have to figure out how to link the two separate writers to Sam Cabot. Is a Cabot page with an introductory sentence or so with wikilinks to Dews and Rozan an acceptable way to go? It would in effect stay a stub -- unless the books take off. Then it would need more information. Thanks for all your help, Oldbeeg (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Oldbeeg: I've changed Sam Cabot, but I am unsure, so I have asked for help, below. There will be someone who knows. The {{Helpme}} system is your friend. Mine too. I've been here for a year or two and I use it when I can't find the answer easily.

The other article needs to mention the Cabot partnership. If it does not, please add it, with sourcing, of course. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent, I was editing the Rozan article, had added that Sam Cabot was her plus Carlos Dews, and decided a Dews page was needed so 'everyone' could be linked to 'everyone'. I like your using a disambiguation page -- I couldn't figure the way to do that. I hope Boleyn, or another disambiguation specialist will be along with comments. Thanks again for your help, Oldbeeg (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sam Cabot

Pease inspect Sam Cabot and help me by turning it into the correct type of page. As you can see it is a page to allow a reader to enter Sam Cabot in the search box and to be shown that Sam is the nom de plume of a duo of authors writing collaboratively under the same name. I've done my best, but I'm not sure I'm correct i the way I've handled it, so seeing the correct solution will be useful, please. Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Should be more useful now. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dov Schperling

Hello, I have edited my article's text and added many sources. Please review it and let me know if it is ready for submission. Thank you --Schmuels (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Schmuels: I will go and have a look shortly, but why not resubmit it anyway. By the way that wasn't quite the right use of the Helpme template. One places it on one's own talk page and asks a question directly related to one's self. Not to worry. Fiddle Faddle 17:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Looking forward to your feedback.--Schmuels (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Feedback left at the draft article Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comment. the page is a bibliography of a deceased person.--Schmuels (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you need to make that more obvious with "Fred Smith (September 4, 1876 - July 4, 1942)" It;s very easy to miss

It is written just above the bibliography "Dov Schperling ( 17 December 1937 - 5 Mar 2014 ) ". anyway- can I get help on getting this article accepted?--Schmuels (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Scmuels: I've moved what seem to be references rather than external links into the References section. I cannot read Hebrew so cant; do much more than that with them. What I suggest is that you resubmit, and get the next reviewer's advice. I don't think I can be much more help. Fiddle Faddle 07:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

ok, thank you--Schmuels (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. Fiddle Faddle 20:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Angelo Maristela

Hi. Just received comments for my first article. In your comments, the tone should be neutral. I can fix that. However for the source Abode Magazine, the link I provided is an online issue. It has flippable digital pages. I did mention the page numbers though. Should I just delete that? Please let me know. Thanks A1unlimited (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@A1unlimited: I must have missed the page numbers. Have a good look at WP:CITE, and templates such as {{Cite web}} for ways of doing this. If it is a good reference do not delete it, just enhance it. Fiddle Faddle 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

JohnHeggelund

I work for Children at Risk. They asked me to create the wiki using the information from the website so as not to create any consistency issues. How can I do my job and make the wiki page using that information without getting cited for copyright infringement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHeggelund (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@JohnHeggelund: I surmised that you did and had been. We have a process under WP:COPYRIGHTS (see also WP:OTRS) to donate the article under an irrevocable licence. That may meet your needs. Obviously my action is to protect your copyright and must seem very annoying, but we cannot know with any certainty that you are who you say you are, as I am sure you can appreciate. If you need additional help place {{Helpme}} on your own talk page and ask this question, explaining the additional help you need. I am not a copyright expert, and you deserve an expert answer. Fiddle Faddle 20:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft Postal Certifications

Hi Timtrent, you declined my draft article about postal certifications. You mentioned in your description that it is not clear enough what the article is about: a list or a generic page. Postal certifications are a hard topic. All over the world only five postal certifications are available. In my article I mentioned all the five certifications (List them up) and tried to give an overview why they were launched, when they were launched, what postal organizations expect on the certifications etc.

Not sure what you asked me to add or to clarify on this.

Can you please advise me?

Thanks and greetings from Germany Pinpoint_since1991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinpoint since1991 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pinpoint since1991: Please never forget to link to the article. I found it easily, but it helps .

I wrote "I need some more clarity regarding this article. Is it a list of postal certification schemes or does it discuss postal certification in generic terms. To me, at present, it tries to do both and thus fails. Instead of covering two subjects in one article consider two articles, or stick to one subject." and that is really my only criticism so far. I have no idea if you are attempting a list of systems, or whetehr the article is about the topic. To me it tries top bring the two together and thus fails. I would prefer an article on each.

But, and this is important, I am not the sole reviewer.

Others may form a different view, and that is fine. May I suggest you ask at the Articles For Creation Help Desk for other eyes to look and guide you in the route froward? Don't forget to link there to your draft. Fiddle Faddle 16:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Henry k raine

Thanks for the good advice. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahill1974 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cahill1974: I think it will survive. There is sufficient referencing and enough work to be a stub article. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Review

Hi Tim,

I apologize for the accidental deletion of the review, and the vandalism of your comment. Someone was at my computer at the time and I wasn't watching what they were doing. Thank you.

- Hickerz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicksterz (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hicksterz: Accepted with pleasure. I think you can make this article work. Just research the references you need and all will be fine. Fiddle Faddle 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Library consultant

Back in 2009, you nominated the page Library consultant for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library consultant). A new user has submitted an Articles for Creation draft at Draft:Library consultant and I thought you might want to take a look at it. —Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mz7: It is quite possible that the world has moved ahead, but I am pushing this back once to the author for more rigour solely on the basis of what I see in the article. I try not to re-review articles unless for obvious material, so, since my review is opinion based, albeit with rationale, I shall not re-review it. Other eyes are important here. Thanks for letting me have the chance to look at it. Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Powerflush

Hi Tim, where do I find your comments on my submission?

As you can guess, I'm new to this!

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janlepkowski (talk • contribs) 08:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Janlepkowski: easier than you think. We were all new once, of course. Draft:Power flush (heating systems) is where the draft article is now, and where the review comments are. There is an awful lot one needs to learn at once, isn't there. The question you need to consider is "Is power flushing a notable topic, and suitable for WIkipedia?" For me it;s borderline, but the current article does need work. I fear quite a lot. User:Timtrent/A good article may help you. Don't rush. We have loads of time. Fiddle Faddle 09:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Acorn Stairlifts Draft

Acorn Stairlifts

Our recent submission regarding Acorn stairlifts was rejected as reading too much like an advert. So as to help us edit the article accordingly, could you please offer some guidance as to how our article differed from the one written by Stannah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stannah_Lifts which also has some internal links and company information. Obviously we'd like to get our re-submission right so would be grateful to know what differences there are between Stannah's wiki entry and our own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.76.52 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wish you had linked to the article. I have been handling so many articles that I cannot find yours. I can thus only give you general help:

• Ignore Stannah. If the article on them is not up to standard any editor at all may edit it, nominate it for deletion (only in good faith, obviously). The thing about Wikipedia is that no article sets a precedent for any other. I know that feels weird, bit think deeply. If we let poor quality set a precedent the whole thing gets dragged lower. See Idiocracy, which would be unfortunate indeed
• Make sure, despite being excited about your products, that you do not over-feature them. What we need to see is an article with references about Acorn, the company. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. So ot is sufficient to say "Acorn Stairlifts manufacture stairlifs and specialise (if you do) in difficult access installations(CITATION - a third party WP:RS discussion of how cracking good Acorn as a company is.
• Deal with company history (verified by proper references in WP:RS)
• Accept that Acorn may just not be notable. What has it done that has come to media notice? Not Press Release stuff nor PR stuff. What have media people said about Acorn. Include the bad stuff, if any. If you do not and the article is accepted someone else will!

I'm not sure I'll be able to offer more advice if I find the draft, but feel free to find it for me and link to it. I'll do my best. I would counsel you, though. Not much good ever comes from an organisation writing its own Wikipedia article. It often backfires. Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I failed because it is Draft:Acorn Mobility, not stairlifts.

Simple things matter

• "most notably the Acorn Superglide 120 and Acorn 180 Curved Stairlift System.' er, no. Wikipedia decides what is notable. a reference in WP:RS may achieve it.
• History section. No refs means it is unimportant. It should either go or be referenced. If there are no references it is plain not notable
• "Acorn Mobility Services are committed to the Investors in People standards, of which it is a member. The company has over 1,000 employees worldwide." Is it? So reference it. Mainly, folk use IIP as some sort of "look at me!"
• "Acorn Mobility Ltd is happy to lend their support to many charitable causes including the Macmillan Cancer Support, Sue Ryder and The Arthritis Foundation and regularly donate stairlifts to local hospices and homes." Whoppeee! Go Acorn. But, unless the re are WP:RS references for it, we don't care. And, as a marketing copywriter of many years experience,. So what?" What value does this add to Acorn's notability?
• "In 2003 Acorn Stairlifts partnered with Dr Hilary Jones" Who? And So what?

Instead of looking at this as "We must have a page on Wikipedia" ask yourself why? Then find all the references you can about Acorn, and create your article from them, built around verifiable and significant facts. I hope this helps you to understand my review Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New articles

Hi Timtrent. Just a word to thank you and your colleagues for monitoring the progress of articles by new Wikipedians and assisting them in improving their performance. See for example here. Keep up the good work.Ipigott (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I didn't realise I had been so busy. I have declined many more than I have accepted. I wish we could somehow change the poor quality that often issues from the firehose of ordure. Fiddle Faddle 17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't despair! Even if you only manage to keep one out of ten, the future of the EN Wiki will be assured. For some, it's a long learning process, for others, innate ability. Thanks to people like you, many of the newbies decide to stay around. Unfortunately, many more are frightened away by the treatment they receive, especially when they are told their work is not sufficiently notable or smacks of publicity or is simply below standard. P.S. I like your bios on British gymnasts.--Ipigott (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the acrobatic lads. They seem to get such a raw deal. No olympic sport, no real recognition. I hoped others would pick up the baton, but no!

Always remember, not every newbie is worth it, but AfC lets them at least try to be! Fiddle Faddle 21:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-islet cell tumor induced hypoglycemia

Hi, Timtrent. Did you see my comment here? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Axl: I have now. Please may I suggest that you ask at the Articles For Creation Help Desk for a re-review, based upon that discussion and the comments at the head of the draft and any other information you feel to be relevant. If I have any advice it is to be concise. I'm sure you understand why I declined it - it was in order to force some sort of action. Very few of us have the deep expertise required to review this. Is there any coverage (I have not re-checked) in relevant WP:RS media? That would be useful Fiddle Faddle 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Unipart Group

Thanks, that's really helpful. I am absolutely trying to avoid conflict of interest and have tried to avoid puff. I will follow the steps you've outlined and, once again, I'm very grateful for the help.

Fxdn (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)FXDN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fxdn/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxdn (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Unipart Group Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

Sorry to trouble you and thanks for responding to my submission. I'm not an experienced editor and I'm not sure what to do at this stage.

Would it be more appropriate for me to edit the existing page myself making the changes and adding content?

BTW I tried to use the live help chat but I really couldn't see how that worked!

Many thanks in advance for your time and patience in helping with this

regards Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxdn (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fxdn: Always trouble me! Well, not always, but you know what I mean. The route forward is simple. I remember that you have declared yourself to be fro Unipart and wish things to be corrected. Wisely you wish to avoid conflict of interest. You probably won;'t be surprised that we have a mechanism for that. It is {{Request edit}}, deployed on the talk page of the article.

Here is how to use it:

• Go to the article's talk page, and start a new section
• Make the same statement as you did declaring your Uniparrtness and desire to correct items
• Deploy {{Request edit}},
• For EACH edit that you wish to make, show the before item, probably a whole paragraph, and the desired after item. It would be wise to title each ===Requested edit 1===, 2, etc, for clarity
• If you have references embedded in the changes you wish to make (and I hope you do), deploy {{Reflist}} at the foot of your requests, but above the next bulletetd 'instruction'
• At the foot, ask people politely to consider the edits and to make them if they agree with them and sign the post using ~~~~, which turns automagically into your signature.
• Monitor the article and talk page for discussions and changes but do not be at all surprised if nothing ever happens. Also do not be surprised if your wording is change (etc)

What happens next depends solely on the cadre of editors who watch the page. If nothing happens at all for a couple of weeks give me a shout and I'll try to work out the right route to cause action. We ought at least to see people discuss the proposed edits even if they choose not to perform them Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Neil Randall David

Hi TimTrent I am very pleased with the Wikipedia acceptance of my article titled “Neil Randall David”. However, the title is not the ideal name for this biographical article. Can you assist me in changing to one of the following? Reason for change. Neil David is an American Indian, internationally known but not by his formal name. He is commonly called Neil David Sr. or Neil David; and signs his art in that manner. If someone wants to use Wikipedia to find out more of him or his Indian background they would not be able to reach his site readily. I have some minor edits on his Wikipedia site,I can handle these, but I do not know how to rename it. The name most appropriate would be Neil David Sr. followed by Neil R. David, or Neil R. David Sr. or Neil Randall David Sr. in that order.

When I go to Wikipedia and type in Neil David, I get a number of Neil David with optional middle names or intitials but not a direction to Neil David Sr.

Can you change the title or assist me in getting it changed?

Thank you, MarkThree MarkThree (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Easy to do, and done. Well, in a moment. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!

When the discussion on AfC started about people going too fast, I was just scolded for two declines (which I continue to assert were proper declines) and told by that discussion's author that I should probably stop awhile because I had just picked up editing again and already accumulated 1k edits after 6 days or so. I didn't speak up there because I felt if my recent re-emergence was being used to undermine my work it would most certainly be used to undermine my opinion. You defended people who have been dilligently cutting down this backlog now who were not otherwise doing so, and I respect that. Thanks for standing up on my behalf. We all make mistakes, but I think even getting something wrong is better than letting it sit. If we falsely decline things that are ready, the dilligent editors that make them would no doubt put them back out for approval, and it would likely pass then. So, here's some tea while we cut down this last 450 or so to go. Race you for second ;) hewhoamareismyself 20:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hewhoamareismyself: I noticed that every time I checked that discussion the originator has not answered my points. The world of full of killjoys.

I have only been playing on AfC for about a month. I think my track record is broadly the same during the drive as outside it. give or take. A drive isn;t perfect, and no-one seems to be playing much in the fire hose of ordure which is the recent submissions pile.

Ok. let's have a race, kind of. I'm sort of deflated about it, not because of killjoy boi's comments, but because it is too long, a whole month. So I will probably get bored soon.

Oh. I have a habit of calling a spade a spade. ~ sips tea~ Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Invercargill Brewery

Thanks for your suggestions. Hopefully I've got it right this time around!Additionally (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done @Additionally: Promise kept Fiddle Faddle

Thank you so much!!! My first Wiki published article. Have a lovely weekend. 103.29.31.21 (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

help me please

Hi Fiddle Faddle, I am a newbie and am trying really hard to improve the micro jobs page that is marked for deletion. I have added a lot of sources, and valid "see also entries" and hopefully some facts you will like. Please help me. As I said, I am new and really need some guidance. Thank you! Kendeyl (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kendeyl: I'll have a look at it. Micro job's references needed more than [1], [2], so I am starting with that. Even Forbes put it in quotes, though, signifying that it is a neologism. And it was WW1 that started by women entering the previously male workplace.. I have removed the places where WIkipedia was used as a reference. We may never use WIkipedia that way because it is not a reliable source.

It;s not whether I like the facts or not. The issue is how the facts are referenced and how they are used.

Starting with referencing, every fact you assert requires a reference. But, your second sentence, while referenced, is not a fact. I book my handyman through the telephone, or through meeting him at another job.

Urban dictionary is a user edited source and cannot be a reference

What seems to have happened is that your contractor (Odd, is it not how the term 'micro jobber' or whatever it night be means contractor or temp) has written an article you are now wedded to, probably because you have paid good money for it. You need to start from the bottom up.

• Are there references for this term?
• Is it, even so, a neologism, something Wikipedia hates
• Using the references as my sources, assuming it will fly, can I create an article that describes the term "Micro Job" itself, and not the world of work within which temporary employment, sourced online or in the flesh is normal and has been for years
• Does this article differ from Temporary work or similar articles? If so, ought it to be merged into them or is it truly separate?

All this stuff is what we try to help folk with in the Articles for Creation process. Even there Wikipedia can feel brutal, but you do get the time to edit to your heart's content until one of us deems it to be ready after you submit it. Unfortunately we also make mistakes, all of us. I have in the past and I will in the future. I may be making one now. I don't think I am, but I may be. You have every right to disagree with me, too.

Specific problems in the article are that it constructs a scenario from the sources. This falls under WP:OR, perhaps WP:SYNTH. Your entire controversies section is original research, for example. The source doesn't mention Micro Job, and thus does not assist your article. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS.

As you can see, I've flagged a few of the areas within the article for discussion, though, rectification, etc, but I will not do all of it because it will pepper it with gratuitous tags and banners. I have also suggested in the deletion discussion that it be sent back to Draft: for you to work on. Please may I suggest to you that you endorse my suggestion there? You have such a lot of work to do that I doubt the seven day time limit for discussion there will be sufficient. When you post there, be humble, be straightforward, and simply suggest that it was a draft article, placed into main space too soon, and that you would like it back as a draft to work on until it either makes the grade or you are convinced it never will.

Wikipedia is not an easy place. It can be brutal. Even the draft/review process can feel brutal, but, as you have seen, difficult as that process is, the deletion process actually hurts. That is why we try hard to avoid premature acceptance.

A piece of reading for you" User:Timtrent/A good article. It helps quite a bit, though is not perfect. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reg : Article India Inclusion Summit!!!

Hello Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle,

Thank you so much for the welcome, i really liked the cookies :-)...

Thank you so much for your review and the suggestions you made to improve the article.:-)... I accept to your point that the names i mentioned in the article and the reference links i provided for them is not actually related to the summit, but the other links do contain their names, what i thought is when i mentioned Mr. V R Ferose MD Sap Labs, i thought i need to provide a link which shows the person is notable, but missed this point that it is not related to summit.

Please see the below links which i have provided in respective to the other speakers. This Summit happened for a good cause Fiddle for physically and differently abled people in the society and they are going help them in all possible ways. I created this article in order to give the information to all the people who might not have attended this sumiit and get the details and contribute for such kind of people. I understood the point you made here about the wiki rules and norms for the reference links, as you suggested, please go through the below links and I hope the article will pass the review and get published. :-)

1. http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Summit-for-differently-abled-promises-new-paths/2013/11/26/article1910719.ece 2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Summit-helps-disabled-persons-help-themselves/articleshow/26598871.cms 3. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/summit-to-push-for-an-inclusive-society/article4152711.ece 4. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-03/news/44710291_1_asd-autistics-disabilities

Fiidle, Here are the other links which with the clips of the National Papers covering the Summit

http://myimpact.impactmeasurement.co.in/index.php?page=Clipj&id=691665f0bc9a2f34d107de3318673f4a&id2=6c8f9acc3b4a1a0e8ca33196721fca2d

http://myimpact.impactmeasurement.co.in/index.php?page=Clipj&id=20833a446b940e2622fe6afe62e18d7d&id2=6c8f9acc3b4a1a0e8ca33196721fca2d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks & Regards Anjali

@Anjali Reddy J: I have looked at the article as it stands today, and I have resubmitted it in your name and accepted it. Forgive me, I do not have the time today to look at the links above. I am not sure if you have included them in the article or not. If you can improve the article please do so. Just remember that it is now in the wild, on its own, and you should father it, not mother it Fiddle Faddle 07:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle,

Thank you so much for not only reviewing the article and also submitting it and accepting it. I have included the above links in the article :-)...Sure i will definitly improve the article and contribute to other articles too by following all the wiki norms & rules. Thank you so much once again..:-)...have a great day and happy weekend..:-)

Thanks & Regards Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Citiustech Wiki page

Hello Timtrent,

This is with regards to the wikipedia page we have been trying to create with the title "CitiusTech".

It would be of great help if you could guide us with the exact URL of the draft under consideration. Along with the same also do educate us the procedure of deleting the unwanted drafts created.

Looking forward for your guidance. Thank & regards, Admin - CitiusTech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.17.154 (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to write an article about your own corporation. But, since you are doing so, let us proceed. To me it does not matter at all which article you choose as long as it is obvious that you have chosen one. Perhaps I chose the wrong one. Who can say? But what you need to do is to migrate any missing information from the one to the other, and then BLANK the one the information was moved from. Blanking an article you created signifies that you wish it to be deleted. Give me a shout when you have done so and I'll see what I can sort out procedurally. Do not resubmit until you have sorted your end out. I may be busy having fun elsewhere, so my bit may take a short while. Be pleasantly patient. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian Kennedy (businessman)

Hi thanks for the message. I have retyped and made into my own words the offending copyright text. I have also but links into each stated information to prove notability against all relevant information. All parts are now text written in my own words and referenced. How do I get my article released as Im not sure what else I need to do inorder to accomplish this.?

I have been constantly improving and making changes to the text and notability to meet all Wikipedia criteria.

Thanks for you help from a person that is new to Wikipedia.

Darran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian George Kennedy (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Brian George Kennedy: Hi Darran. Thanks for the message. I will not be reviewing that article, so you might want to make it clear on iot. If you leave a comment in the following format

{{Afc comment|1=Your comment, whatever you want to say ~~~~}}

in exactly that formatnd leave it on the article itself above the ---- line, then the next reviewer will see it. May I ask, why is your name Darran and your username "Brian George Kennedy"? Fiddle Faddle 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi , When I originally credit the account I thought that I need to create it in the name of the person I was writing about, but have learned since that this is not the case.

Thanks

Darran